/lit/ - Literature

>>3766898
Statistics don't hurt anyone, but application can. This is why I mentioned affirmative action. For every black allowed into a prestigious university for their skin color, there is a white rejected for the same reason.

>>3766865
>It's obvious
Evidence? But let's say you're right. My response is, who cares? Last I checked, ability exists on a spectrum. I view assumption of superiority based on race the same way I view affirmative action.

>>3766844
See >>3766832
In regards to your rhetorical question, the answer is "Yes".

>>3766809
Or you could, you know, make your own point, and cite relevant information. Not even sure which anon you are. Join the glorious tripfag master race today!

>>3766817
I'm confused. Why would you refer to someone else for support, but call them a retard?

>>3766822
It isn't, but you still need sufficient evidence to back a claim.

>>3766789
>empirical
>belief
Pick one.

>>3766800
Why?

>>3766774
I'm a reactionary thug? Okay, glad to see you're respecting your opposition.

>>3766762
I hate Emily Dickinson. Come to think of it, I can't think of any female poet I like.

>>3766732
Correlation=/=causation. Those arguing that there isn't an inherent difference between the value of the races point to apparent differences as results of external conditions. Also, >>3766739
>>3766742
>>3766743

>>3766729
Conveniently, you try to derail the subject when pressed for sources. Good to see racism is steeped in knowledge.

>>3766708
Okay, let me livestream it for you.

>>3766713
Which genes?

>>3766699
"Intelligence" is not an easily-quantifiable trait, and it is not yet determined through physiological or genetic examination.

>>3766700
"Probably". I'm one of the few who is capable of using reason and evidence if prodded to do so, but I use the macro to open discourse and/or be mildly amusing.

>>3766678
That has more to do with idiocy than the medium itself.

>>3766674
Such as?

>>3766669
>for the people by the people
What is this, I don't even.

>>3766642
Or, they could be intended as humorous preaching to the choir. Or a million other things. To claim you know the creator's intent is silly.

>>3766609
Are you OP? If so, seems like you're defeating your own point. I'm more interested in what OP meant by that, as, if it is as I interpret it, it's incredibly hypocritical. I saw it as admitting the macro is presenting an opinion, not a fact, which would contradict the vibe of the OP.

>Have you ever heard of people saying that they think in memes?
I don't understand.

>>3752203
Vageyenas don't count.

>>3752145
There is no G-D but Caesar.

>>3752133
Caesar is only made more glorious by acknowledging His faults.

>>3752112
I don't understand.

>>3752088
What is a "gaogaigar"?

>>3752029
k

>>3752038
This may or may not be because it is correct, and requires no further discussion. Only the pretentious go on to study other philosophers. Of course, there's also the Randroids.

>>3752028
No, CT.